QS World University Rankings 2014/2015
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•940 views
As we prepare for the launch of the 2015/2016 rankings and build the presentations for our launch event on September 15, it seemed a good idea to share last year's excitement. Note slide 40 where we mention proposed changes for the future which have now been implemented.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to QS World University Rankings 2014/2015
Similar to QS World University Rankings 2014/2015 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
QS World University Rankings 2014/2015
- 1. Trusted.Independent.Global. GLOBAL RELEASE 10 SEPTEMBER 2013 Ben Sowter QS Intelligence Unit #QSWUR
- 2. Trusted.Independent.Global. CAREER DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT and INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY by fostering MOTIVATED PEOPLE To enable POTENTIALto achieve their around the
- 4. Trusted.Independent.Global. INTERNATIONAL STUDENT GROWTH 4 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Worldwide OECD G20 countries Europe North America Oceania Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on non-OECD countries. 2.1m 4.5m
- 5. Trusted.Independent.Global. STUDENT CHALLENGES 5 INCREASING COST INCREASING STUDENT NUMBERS INCREASING INTERNATIONAL STUDENT NUMBERS MORE UNIVERSITIES RECRUITING INFORMATION OVERLOAD! EMPLOYER SKILLS GAP LACK OF INDEPENDENT FILTERING TOOLS GENERIC MARKETING MESSAGES
- 6. Trusted.Independent.Global. OURAPPROACH 6 WORLD CLASS UNIVERSITY A UNIQUE LENS QS the only global ranking authority to consider it Central to the life goals of most prospective students An essential inclusion in every QS assessment
- 12. Trusted.Independent.Global. Rankings have many faults and do not adequately describe universities and cannot show whether one institution is better than another… …but I am very happy when Cambridge is rated as the top university in the world 12 ALISON RICHARD Former Vice-Chancellor University of Cambridge
- 13. Trusted.Independent.Global. RANKINGS 13 “SEXY” SIMPLE SIMPLISTIC DISEASE CONSUMERIST CONTROVERSIAL EMOTIVE BIASED POWERFUL DANGEROUS INEVITABLE USEFUL
- 15. Trusted.Independent.Global. THE “Halo EffEct” (1920) 15 GEORGE E.P. BOX “Accidental Statistician” 1919-2013 Essentially all models are wrong, but some are useful
- 16. Trusted.Independent.Global. IN NUMBERS 16 OVER 3,500 UNIVERSITIE S CONSIDERE D OVER 20m DIRECT WEB VISITORS OVER 60m TOTAL WEB VISITORS OVER 850 UNIVERSITIE S RANKED COVERED IN 500+ MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS OVER 90k SURVEY RESPONDEN TS USED BY OVER 9 NATIONAL GOVERNMEN TS RUN FOR 10 YEARS IN 2014 OVER 30 ACADEMIC ADVISORS LED BY 50+ YEARS RANKING EXPERIENCE JUST 29 NEW ENTRIES IN 2014
- 17. Trusted.Independent.Global. 2014-2015: TOP 20 1 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT) 1 2= UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE 2 2= IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON 3 4 HARVARD UNIVERSITY 4 5= UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 5 5= UCL (UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON) 6 7 STANFORD UNIVERSITY 7 8 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) 8 9 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 9 10 YALE UNIVERSITY 10 10 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 11 12 ETH ZURICH (SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY) 12 13 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 13 14= COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 14 14= JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 15 16 KING'S COLLEGE LONDON (KCL) 16 17= UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH 17 17= ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FÉDÉRALE DE LAUSANNE (EPFL) 18 19 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 19 20 UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 20
- 18. Trusted.Independent.Global. These rankings consolidate London’s position as the education capital of the world. Nowhere else will you find such a critical mass of top universities within just a few miles of each other, all providing an excellent education and producing graduates who go on to be leaders in their fields. I’m proud to say that London universities are at the forefront of teaching and research 18 BORIS JOHNSON Mayor of London
- 19. Trusted.Independent.Global. ARWU QS WEBO THE THE WEBO QS ARWU COMMON IN TOP 200 COMMON IN TOP 400 44/100 104/200 165/300 235/400ALL 4 > OVERLAP
- 20. Trusted.Independent.Global. The list is the origin of culture… How does one attempt to grasp the incomprehensible? Through lists. 20 UMBERTO ECO Essayist, Philosopher & Novelist
- 26. Trusted.Independent.Global. FASTEST CLIMBERS 2009-2014 1 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT) 89% 2 SUNGKYUNKWAN UNIVERSITY 61% 3 ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FÉDÉRALE DE LAUSANNE (EPFL) 60% 4 STANFORD UNIVERSITY 56% 5 LUDWIG-MAXIMILIANS-UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN 47% 6 NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (NTU) 47% 7 KOREA UNIVERSITY 45% 8 ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY 42% 9 QUEEN MARY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (QMUL) 40% 10 ETH ZURICH (SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY) 40%
- 27. Trusted.Independent.Global. FIRST INGREDIENT 27 GOVERNANCE SUSTAINED CONSISTENT APOLITICAL AGILE TRANSPARENT FINANCIAL LEADERSHIP PERFORMANCE DRIVEN MISSION LED
- 28. Trusted.Independent.Global. SECOND INGREDIENT 28 FOCUS ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE? PRIORITISE SPENDING INCREASED GRAVITY SUSTAINABLE NETWORK LEVERAGE UNIQUE RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY ELEPHANT TASK
- 29. Trusted.Independent.Global. THIRD INGREDIENT 29 BRANDING CONCISE CONSISTENT SIMPLE DISTINCTIVE STRIKING SPECIFIC GLOBAL HONEST
- 30. Trusted.Independent.Global. FOURTH INGREDIENT 30 COLLABORATE INDUSTRY INTER- NATIONAL TOP DOWN? BOTTOM UP? IN FOR A PENNY? ABOVE AND BELOW DIVERSITY HARD WORK
- 31. Trusted.Independent.Global. FIFTH INGREDIENT 31 PATIENCE TRUST YOUR INSTINCT NO QUICK FIXES LARGE OPERATION RANKINGS LAG OTHERS WORKING TOO FOR THE STUDENTS SNOWBALL EFFECT RECOGNISE SUCCESS
- 34. Trusted.Independent.Global. ALL NEW FACT FILES
- 37. Trusted.Independent.Global. ALL NEW COUNTRY REPORTS Out next week on www.iu.qs.com
- 40. Trusted.Independent.Global. FACULTY LEVEL NORMALISATION Overcomes oddities of field based normalisation Corrects for medical bias Presents language challenge 12 months of engagement, modelling and feedback Advisory Board Broader test groups Community at large Potential introduction for 2015 Applies only to bibliometric indicators
Editor's Notes
- Ladies and gentlemen… [insert appropriate introduction] International university rankings have been around almost a decade and are amongst the most anticipated media releases in international higher education. Since their inception in 2003, the number of students studying outside their home country has increased by over a million and the ways in which they communicate and research study decisions bears little resemblance now to what it did then. To put things in perspective, Facebook was launched in 2004, YouTube in 2005 and Twitter in 2006. These are now central tools, amongst others, being used by institutions to get their messages to prospective international students. From the students’ perspective, they are beset on all sides by information from institutions trying to attract them to their university whilst what they need is an independent voice a picture on the offered opportunity that is not compiled by the organisation offering, and in some cases profiting from, that opportunity. Rankings go some way to assist that, and despite their limitations, they are a significant force for performance improvement in higher education world wide, but they are limited. Limited by the global availability of data which needs to be there for the majority of institutions in order to compile a ranking. This makes it impossible to use many good measures of student experience or facilities and inevitably results in international university rankings placing a particularly heavy emphasis on research. For a prospective international student today, this makes them interesting, but insufficient.
- QS Stars participants are now based in 24 countries around the world and over 100 institutions are now taking part including King’s College London, KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, Queensland University of Technology, Tec de Monterrey and many others. In Taiwan, National Chengchi University is the first QS Stars participant.
- Also mean’s that around 10% of international students are studying at the world’s top 0.5% of universities
- Yet league tables will typically leave much of what makes a university great, invisible beneath the surface – rather than invalidating the league table concept this calls out for a multiplication in the number and variety of models
- Also mean’s that around 10% of international students are studying at the world’s top 0.5% of universities
- Also mean’s that around 10% of international students are studying at the world’s top 0.5% of universities
- The perceived truth of the results rather than the academic rigour of the methodology is the principal lens for validity of a ranking
- LET’S FACE IT… Those institutions that value rankings tend to care about them for two key puproses… those presenting a rose tinted view (or those in which they perform the best)…
- …and those valued by a particular target audience
- Rankings are gloriously simple and this what makes them widely appealing, controversial and print friendly. They represent a fixed moment in time and a limited lens on institutional performance. They are essential for developing a broad view but limited when a finer tuned perspective is required. Ultimately they fail in a number of key ways: Performance in rankings is only in the context of the performance of others – if an institution genuinely improves it only ascends in the rankings if it does so at a faster pace than those adjacent to it Many sensible measures of institutional quality cannot be included since the cooperation of all institutions in gathering the needful data cannot be assured Comprehensive universities generally are at an advantage as, in some cases, are larger ones The differing typologies of institutions are difficult to capture and portray A complementary detailed view for the institutions willing to present a more detailed picture of their qualities is a, perhaps natural, next step.
- Thank you and for more information on QS Stars, please contact the QS Intelligence Unit directly, or Mandy Mok in our Singapore office.